Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Fan v R [2024] NSWCCA 114
The CCA has identified that, at least ordinarily, where a joint criminal enterprise (‘JCE’) is alleged by the Crown against the main offender(s), then even unusual or uncommon forms of liability will flow through to each of the other participants in the JCE.
Ardestani v R [2024] NSWCCA 31
In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that the concepts of extended joint criminal enterprise (‘EJCE’) and ‘in company’ are distinct legal concepts, but being ‘in company’ is less rigorous, and there is no prohibition on the prosecution relying on both of them at the same t
Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229
In this decision the CCA has confirmed the elements that the prosecution must prove when alleging that an accused was an accessory after the fact, and faintly, implicitly, bemoaned the fact that NSW remains the only Australian jurisdiction not to codify this area of the law.
Mohana v R [2023] NSWCCA 61
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that the offence of participate in criminal group requires proof of a single serious indictable offence, and identification of a series of disparate, even if connected, offences will not be sufficient.
Haile v R [2022] NSWCCA 71
The CCA has in this case reenforced the need for a Liberato direction in word-on-word cases, and sounded a caution about any suggestion that such cases involve a ‘choice’ between versions.
Ah Keni v R [2021] NSWCCA 263
In this decision the CCA has found that in order to be guilty of being an accessory after the fact, an offender has to take active steps to assist the principal offenders. It will not be enough to simply fail to report the offence to the police – although silence might sometimes be relevant to objec
Xue v R [2021] NSWCCA 270
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that when prosecuting an offence of dealing with property that there are reasonable grounds to suspect are proceeds of crime, the Crown can rely upon a non-specific ‘serious offence’ as the source of the proceeds. This is to be contraste
Attorney-General’s Application pursuant to s 108 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): Re Robert Burton (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCCA 87
AUTHOR’S NOTE: There is a really serious question here about what the statutory publication restriction means. The publication restriction in s 108(6) is called out twice by Simpson AJA in the decision (at [5]-[6] and again at [86]), but the judgment offers no advice as to what it really means.
Ford v R [2020] NSWCCA 99
When working through the different types of aggravated and ‘specially’ aggravated break and enter offences, the CCA has determined that the various factors are untethered from one another. The correct approach is to cascade through s112 according to its subsections, at each stage only asking whether
Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191
In this decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, it has been held (or perhaps confirmed) that the relevance to self-defence of intoxication is spent once it is taken into account in determining what the accused subjectively perceived.
Roads and Maritime Services v Farrell; Roads and Maritime Services v Northcott; Roads and Maritime Services v Le Thorn; Roads and Maritime Services v Touba; Roads and Maritime Services v Culpan; Roads and Maritime Services v Hooper [2019] NSWSC 552
In this set of joint matters, a single judge of the Supreme Court has delivered a rebuke to Local Court registrars who simply sign application proceedings without considering jurisdiction, and has examined the eligibility of applicants under the Driver Disqualification Removal Scheme.
Singh v R [2019] NSWCCA 110
In this decision which revisits a very old hangover of the common law, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that there can still be a constructive ‘breaking’ into a property even where the door was opened voluntarily (but without a trick, and with no force used), because the offenders
Baradi v R [2018] NSWCCA 143
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered the question of just how little control is required for the purpose of detaining a person for advantage, and has determined that, at least in this given scenario, it will be enough to say ‘come on, get up.
Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] NSWCCA 251
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that the offence of destroying or damaging property, perhaps counterintuitively, does not necessarily require actual damage.